Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
You want kill me?
YES!
I want kill you!
OK.
Let us fight!
ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Only Jesus is real!
Why?
Because I can feel it!
But why don't I?
Because you haven't given yourself to him.
Don't say that to me!
YOU NEED JESUS!
NO, I DON'T
YES YOU DO!
DIE!
DIE!
DIE!
DIE!

Allah tells me the truth.
Allah is not the real god!
WHAT?!
You should do things the way I do them!
But I don't agree with them!
YOU SHOULD!
NO! YOU SHOULD AGREE WITH ME!
NO!
DIE!
DIE!

Why do you not buy-buy-buy?
Because this is all I need.
But you should want more!
Why if I don't need it?
Because it is civilised!
I reject it then.
You MUST change!
NO!
MUST!
NO!
MUST!
NO!
DIE!

What the hell is wrong with the World? Every country in every continent is fighting in one way or the other...whether it be a physical bombardment, or a psychological bombardment...WHY?

When I travel to different places, I always meet people that I like, that I can talk with, that I can laugh with, BUT...Still the troubles continue...

If people on a basic human level can communicate and empathise with each other, why is the news filled with war, terror and hate? Why is it that governments world-wide create enemies and points of difference with other nations, when on an individual-scale most people can get along regardless of language barriers?

True, on an individual level, people also argue and fight, but to a lesser extent. When it does happen...Why? Greed? Envy? Lust? Perceived differences? What's the point?

Why is it, when the majority of the world wants peace and harmony, do we have war?

Maybe I am being naive, but I don't understand why we can't all accept differences in skin-colour, race, religion, economic staus and culture. We live here on Earth and we all want peace, so why don't we have it?

Hell if I know.

Not everyone wants peace, and some people who do, think that their way is the best way of going around it to achieve it.

Many people profit from war, so i guess for some its the issue of money. Also control - if people in one country are economically weaker than they are less likely to be any kind of threat to a country that is economically strong.

Then theres fanaticism - mostly religious. The 'do it my way, or you will die' kind of thing.

Those are just brief examples i guess, but there are may reasons for people not having peace.

On a fundamental level everybody desires peace. The only indisputable result of war is death. Even the most despicable dictator/war lord/president is bound by a desire to respect the sanctity of his/her own life. Therefore, it should be intrinsic that the lives of others are also bound by this belief.



But this again illustrates the inability to accept differences, which is the ultimate cause of all wars.



The world's economy is most stable in times of peace...therefore, if we have peace, we have prosperity.



I don't know a single person who desires their own country to acquire other countries. If individuals accept this desire as repungent then it should be mirrored by their government.



This is true in a mass context, but on an individual level it ceases to exist. I have laughed and talked with people from many different faiths and regardless of their beliefs being different from my own, we are bound by a need for empathy and happiness.

leave lil bitchiness alone

Not really - a dictator/war lord/president will be willing to sacrifice the lives of his people for a greater cause or his/her own gian - look at Bush.





Exactly - you just partly answered your own question.





It is overall. But powerful individuals gain from wartime - its always been like that. Industries such as weapon manufacturing and the likes, profit a lot from war.





Thats idealistic - it doesnt really happen like that. It ''should'' be mirrored by the government, but its not...politicians are corrupt - in every country.




Not EVERYONE is a fanatic. People you spoke to and laughed with evidently were not fanatics of their faith and wouldnt go around killing people in the name of it, unfortunately there are people like that and once they get together - many acts of inhumanity occur.

If everyone did get along in the first place, anger wouldn't exist... and if it did not exist, then if invaders (animals, ect) ever attack us, our first instinct would be to hide...

Don't complain, just make use of the things we have... as gandolf the wise says "what you have to worry is what you have to do in the given time"..

I understand this, but if every person in a position of great power was made aware of the peace available, why wouldn't they take it? If the world had peace, there would be no need for sacrifice.



I recognise what the problem is, but I don't understand why it exists.



Again, I understand this, but the truth is that without war and it's astronomical costs, other avenues would be pursued resulting in an alternate source of income.



This whole discussion is based in idealism! The World should be governed by universal ideals...such as peace.



This, I believe, is the root cause of ALL of the troubles in the world and I am simply unable to comprehend how people can be so utterly corrupted by it.

PeterKSL...both of your posts are completely bizarre! Something about predatory instincts and a LOTR quote!?!?!?!?!

Life would be rather boring without confrontation. especially without confrontation with other people. Humanity has the ability to one day reach a unified understanding of one another. This is only possible through confronatation. It takes us a lifetime to understand ourselves let alone each other,confrontation and resolve is a must in for social evolution. We as humans just have a hard time of remembering our history and mistakes though, or maybe temptation is just to much, and can you have a unified peace with giving into temptation? I dont think so, atleast not as long as we all give into personal temptation without regaurd of the effects it will have on others. vanity rules most people

I totally disagree with everything you have stated here ^. The irony of me stating that whilst doing the opposite is not lost on me.

However, I don't think that confrontation and debate are the same things...Confrontation is usually a case of one trying to impose his/her views on another, whereas debate is the art of discussion resulting in greater knowledge and awareness of others. Even in times of relative peace, debate still occurs as this is the way humans broaden their understanding.

Finally, to state that peace is only achieveable through conflict is one of the most oxymoronic things I've ever heard stated outside of a George Orwell novel.

Because unfortunately, the vast majority of people in power are narrow-minded, short-sighted, selfish individuals who only see (or only care about) the immediate material rewards violent conflict might bring.

people suck,
thats why

Sadly, it's the truth. Tpt, of course, puts it much more bluntly

But seriously, if we could get more people to think outside of their little box they live in...there probably wouldn't be nearly as many wars, if any at all.

Of course, that is a very idealistic view and is unlikely it'd ever happen.

The world is too "I'm gonna get ahead of my fellow man no matter what" rather than "I'm gonna try to better myself and if the chance presents itself and I agree with it, help others."

Humans are arrogant, self-centered and frail.

-AC

There is an overwhelming simplicity to the question being asked. And therein lies the answer. Sometimes the most simple of things can not be achieved because they are so simple.

Too many world religions preach that their way is the only way. I'm not even talking about war or oppression. Simple things like abortion or gay rights are fought and killed for in this country alone.

Take christianity for example: The basic principles are good. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. A fine moral ideal. But then there are those who get blinded by the whole "save the world from itself, even if it hasn't asked to be saved" principle. Even the idea of 'love the sinner, hate the sin' is antagonizing and lends itself to disagreement.

thing is though, most things in life are oxymoronical. We live to die, we love to hate, and we kill to save. Resolution and peace has come from and been learned from conflict. How can you truly appreciate something without knowing the opposite end of what is being appreciated. Obtaining peace in most instances involve conflict in some way, whether it be external or internal, conflict is essential for growth.

In America today our society have imposed laws to force the idea of peace. This only instigates conflict. Do you truly believe that humans could achieve peace without conflict? Just consider how our minds work and what history has showed us. Yeah, thinking logically, it seems idiotic to believe that conflict is the path to peaee. When you think realistically though, and look to the past. Growth and understanding is very rarely achived through a logical state of mind. I personaly believe this is because humans are bound by emotion, and emotion is not logical, but chaotic.

We don't live to die. We live to live, or at least we should. The fact that death comes after life doesn't mean that the ultimate goal of life is death.

And yes... Peace is the absence of conflict, so there is really no possible way peace can be achieved through war. Unless you mean internal conflict, in which case you are right in some cases. Or your idea of peace is a society in which everybody is identical because all the people who look, act, or think differently have been wiped out in a horrible bloody massacre.

If that is your 'answer', then my question still remains unresolved...'WHY are some people like this?'. It seems beyond my comprehension that some people simply want destruction and war. If people respect the beliefs of others - and are treated in kind - then I see no need or desire for war and conflict.



This is quite ridiculous. The simplicity of the question is not an innate answer to the question! You can't answer a question of "why?" with the answer of "Oh, because it's so simple!". I'm looking for a bit more in depth reasoning than pseudo-Zen gibberish...



I respect your insight, but I don't agree with your conclusions. My life is not determined by my death...My love is not balanced with the same amount of hate...I don't see the need to kill in order to save...These are ideas promoted by the media, governments and other ideologues. Individual people are not bound to them, unless they accept them.

I agree with your remarks about appreciation being dependent on comparison. However, I think the history of the world is littered with enough examples of attrocities committed by man that we could do without adding to the back-catelogue...shouldn't evolution be about enhancing our minds aswell as our bodies?

Because once people achieve a certain amount of success, it is quite easy to lose sight of "right" and "wrong" and make decisions only to benefit one's self. It's not that they want destruction and war, it's that destruction and war sometimes benefit a handful of people in a usually material way. Many people are of the persuasion that as humans it is their responsibility to care for their fellow humans... Others aren't, for whatever reason. That's where this turns into psychology more than philosophy

Our history should infact be enough to learn from. The fact that we as a whole have not yet learned, tell's us that we as humans are not yet ready for peace. I believe that we all should strive for a controlled evolution of the minds. Unfortunately, everyone else believes this, they believe it in their own way, and our perspectives conflict on how this happens. Which leaves us all soley as individuals in a united goal. Untill we can come together and put power and vanity aside we will continue on in a cycle of devastating conflict. History always repeats itself, even the present tells us that. Untill we all learn from mistakes peace is just an idea. Learning from the past isnt that easy though, i think it goes deeper into trying to understand ourselves.

So, you don't think the answer is simple? Why ask a question and then attack people for giving their answers? If you know the answer is so in-depth, then don't come to a forum on the internet and ask your questions. Write the president a letter or go talk to a priest.

And, once again, the answer is quite simple: Because assholes like yourself exist.

I'm no follower of Zen, but if I were, you would have just answered you own question.....

But CF, he's asking WHY such assholes exist.

Well, now we know he's an expert on assholes, don't we. So...tell us....*******.

I understand what he's asking. I gave my explaination of why I believe such assholes exist.

Sarcasm my friend, sarcasm.

Calm down, Captain! Just because I disputed your post doesn't mean that you can't add to the discussion in the future! A discussion by it's very nature involves conflicting views...I already mentioned this irony in regards to the topic of discussion!

I simply stated that your original 'answer' added nothing to the discussion...You just need to think about it, rather than type the first thing that pops into your head. Either that or go and post in The Off Topic forum...

everyone desires peace, but there will always be predjudice and jealousy.. we are material creatures that thrive on being in the spotlight

You didn't dispute anyting. You simply said that my observation/opinion (that the answer in this case is like most possible solutions: The most simple explaination is the most likely answer.) is silly and absurd. I don't believe that to be the case in this situation. You want to pretend that the answer is cosmic..something that requires deep thought. The harder you think about the answer to the question the less time you have to observe the answer. Look around you my friend. In case you haven't noticed, the human condition lends itself to suffering. When you suffer, you look for a reason. And the easiest thing to do is blame someone else for your suffering...even if it truely is your own fault. Why isn't my answer "good enough" or "thought out" enough for you? Why was Poland and France not enough for Hitler? Why couldn't Bill Gates stop after the first billion dollars? Why? Because the point of life is to continue. To evolve. To start out as one thing and end another. This principle trickles down from the etherial concept of evolution to the very real human being that walks the Earth to the now extict micro organism that started it all. To ask why conflict exists is like asking how life began. Why does the virus have to kill the organism it lives in? Because life is the principle of destruction and rebirth? Because life lends itself to everything and until it consumes everything and destroys itself will it be able to continue to grow and improve?

Does that mean that one religious belief can exist in the heart of one person and be truely valid unless it exists in the heart of the man standing next to him? Not in my opinion. On a personal level, and thanks to the intricacies of human interaction, yes. You and I can have a conversation about the weather becuase we are both interested in it, we're both effected by it. But bring up your religious beliefs and I will think less of you with each passing moment because I think organized religion is a waste of time. Can your religion be right if mine is too? Logically, no. Realistically, yes. That's why I believe that the answer lies in apathy until sympathy is needed. You don't f,uck with me and I won't f,uck with you. If you need help, then I'll be there. I'll live my life, love my boyfriend and pay my bills. You live out your version.

So, why is the answer simple? Because this is a feeling that all people have. The crack addict wishes he could get off crack and succeed in life, but that doesn't stop him from raping your wife and stealing her purse to buy more crack...so that he can get high again and forget what he just did. The answer is simple because all life strives to dominate and justify...dominate in religion, politics, social pleasantries and even in conversation. Justify by asking pointless questions and then making irrelevant observations. It doesn't matter why we can't get along. What matters is that you..the person...try. And as long as you do, then you will have done your small part to make it that much easier for us all to exist together.

The new Jesus my ass.

This is my question: We live here on Earth and we all want peace, so why don't we have it?

This is your answer:



^ It doesn't make any sense.

You then offer these illustrations:



These are fair enough illustrations - and I agree with them - but they don't offer any reasoning as to why people believe this way...If you have read my original post you will see that I am questioning WHY people can not or refuse to accept differences. Sure, religion teaches people to 'defend their own faith', but HUGE parts of the world are not dependent on religion as a major part of their life...

In your most recent post, you go on to talk about evolution, but all you are thinking about is physical evolution...what about evolving an ability for the greater acceptance of the different types of human nature?

In many ways, humans greatly differ, but in others we are unified. The need for families, friends, love, peace etc...are all universal beliefs and ideals...My question remains the same - If we all hold these ideals, why do we not live for them and by them?

Oh, and the New Jesus is not your ass...it's my ass. Please stop sniffing it.

"Why can't we all just get along?"

Because there will always be assholes in the world.

well why does it have to rain?

cause god still tries to have attempts at drawning the netherlands


somehow this title reminds me of "We all stand together"

If you can't wrap your mind around what I'm saying, then that alone illustrates why we can't get along. And my use of the term ethereal evolution illustrates what I mean by the non physical aspect of evolution.

I've run into people like you before. You think so highly of yourself that you think if you ask a question that man has been asking since the beginning of time, then tell everyone who weighs in that they're wrong or ignorant or irrelevant or that it's been said before, to make yourself feel better or smarter, then once again you illustrate why no one can get along.

Practically everyone that has responded to your thread has been told that they don't understand or they are wrong. There is no wrong answer to this question. The variables are too many. You think that you can ask such a question and find the answer you seek through discussion. All you have to do is live in the same world with the rest of us, and you'll see why we can't get along. It doesn't matter what we all want, it's how we all live.

You approach this question like you're the only one that's ever wondered about the answer. Every person that has ever been robbed, raped or lost a child to war has asked this question. If you want to act like you have the answer, then it's time to belly up to th ebar...and share your profound insight. If you want to cry about no one taking your question seriously, you should stick to making threads about bowel movments.

And I'm not sniffing your ass, I have my head down there because that's where you're talking from. I'm trying to listen.

I doubt it if anyone would get along.It is some people's nature not to get along with others because of there race there gender adn other stuff.I doubt it if it will ever change.JM

When individuals meet, we are not just meeting another body, we are meeting a spirit developed in relationship to other people, places and things. We do get along to a certain point. If we did not, society would already be forgotten history. We have to ask ourselves on which attitude our getting along is based on.

The human race is just plain ignorant is all.plain and simple.

If you consistently insist on knowing WHY everything is the way it is, you will never get anywhere. For example, I can look at my hand, and wonder why it is shaped that way. I could say, "well, because apes' hands are shaped similarly and we evolved from them". Then I could ask myself why apes' hands are shaped that way. I could then say, "well, because they serve many practical purposes, like manipulating small objects." Then I could ask myself WHY they need to manipulate small objects. "well, because sometimes that can prove useful for things like getting food and eating it." "but WHY do apes need to eat food?" "because they would die if they didn't." "But WHY would they die if they didn't?" "Because that's the way they were designed." "But WHY were they designed that way?" "Because the way animal's bodies work is an efficient method of survival." "But WHY is it an efficient method of survival?" "There are many reasons." "But WHY are there many reasons?" "Because they are complex organisms." "But WHY are they complex organisms?".... See what I mean? I could go on forever like that, and I've completely lost sight of the original question. It's pointless, because you'll never reach a conclusion, you'll just go around in circles forever and never get anywhere. At some point you have to stop questioning why things are the way they are and just accept it.

IE, there are assholes in the world, and that's just the way things are, and it's impossible to say why.

I'm going to start off by apologising, as I don't want to get bogged down in an argument regarding semantics...Sometimes I am an anal idiot and I know this...other times I am merely being facetious...

As for 'ethereal evolution'...it sounds nice, but I'm not a religious man, so I have no comprehension of that term.

Anyway...I have no illusions of grandeur in regards to this thread or this question...It was just something I have been thinking about recently as a result of the news and a book I've been reading...

I also appreciate that there is no definitive answer to the question, but I view debating as a way of either substantiating your own opinion or broadening it in light of the opinion of others...If I don't agree with a statement made, I will say so, but then I will wait for a response to see if it can change my conviction...That is the reason I sometimes will go a little OTT - just to see the faith other people have in their convictions...

Anyway, all this has been a little too soberly self-indulgent on my part, so enough about me and back to the discussion...

I read this passage recently:

'Another war is always coming. They are never properly extinguished. What sparks wars? The will to power, the backbone of human nature. The threat of violence, the fear of violence, or actual violence, is the instrument of this dreadful will. You can see the will to power in bedrooms, kitchens, factories, unions and the borders of states. Listen to this and remember it. The nation state is merely human nature inflated to monstrous proportions. QED, nations are entities whose laws are written by violence. Thus it ever was, so ever shall it be. War is humanity's eternal companion.'

So, even though I originally argues against it, perhaps 'power' is the ultimate corrupter of humanity's search for peace.

I know some people here have said it is futile to discuss 'why', but this is the Philosophy Forum so no other question exists...

Your thoughts...?

Because people are hypocritical.

"I believe in equal rights."
"Do you believe in gay marriage?"
"No."


I myself, have no problem with any sort of people whatsoever, excluding people who do intentional harm to animals - human or otherwise, and some very sick people.

I have no problem talking to mentally challenged kids or helping them out, being friends with homosexuals or blacks... we're all people.

I don't think it's necessarily true that the ultimate underlying purpose in all philosophy is a question of "why". It is possible to gain meaning from something without even venturing there.

My use of the term "ethereal evolution" has no basis in religion. At least not in terms of organized religion. That was never my point. I was simply referring to that part of evolution that we(meaning anyone) don't understand.

I can agree with your quote, only in that war will always be with us. However, I differ in that war is a broad term. Simple arguments are the foundation of such things.

Congratulations, you can now draw your hierarchy graph.. and you will eventually find the answer there if you search deeper.

I think the quote is arguing this precise point - that individual human nature is reflected in the the behaviour of the powers that govern us...If individuals argue, then governments simply do the same on a much larger scale...

However, I think public out-pourings of support in times of global crisis' - Tsunami donations, for example - show that perhaps, humans have a greater capacity for empathy than our goverments give us credit for...

Ou Be, check out Krishnamurti's Freedom From the Known. He does a better job explaning it than I could.

Right, it's very much the butterfly effect.

I don't think there would be outpourings over the Tsunami business if people weren't encouraged to react this way via the media channels.

I'm sure this is true to some extent, but the greater effect of the media is to let us bare witness to such an event like never before. This is what causes the greater charity, because we can view it so intimately and directly.

If the media had encouraged contempt for the outcomes may would have reacted accordingly.

What a bizarre thing to say!

We can never just all get along - that's a utopia.

I asked this question from the island of idealism. The point of the discussion is why can't we all just get along? 'Human nature' is not the answer I'm looking for...think outside the box...